Just received Letter of Claim

trotbot

Coupon-Mad - Sorry I hadn't completed reading up on that additional point and didn't get back to it last night. Thank you for the update, I have added it to my Defence post.

Le_Kirk & Coupn-Mad - Cheers for the heads up, "Statement" removed from the header.

IamEmanresu - KFC changed part of their supply chain and DHL took on responsibility for delivering chicken. They screwed it up and 100's of KFC restaurants were without chicken including the Melton outlet. I appreciate it is quite a thin argument and only serves to point out a lack of loss to the businesses served by the car park.

System

I think the chicken issue is a dead duck. This is all about relevance.

The key point is not whether there was an adequate supply, nor is it about 70% full, nor is it about loss. The key points are about the readability of the signs.

As you say others were caught then it is a clear indication of the poor signage.

Coupon's post at #22 would be the way forward. Unless you chicken out.

trotbot

IamEmanresu - Puntastic!

In all seriousness I understand and aim to push poor signage as the key part of my defence. By the time I have to submit any evidence the clocks will be back on GMT and I will be able to record footage in the dark and at the same time the alleged offence took place.

Thank you for your advice.

trotbot

Hi all,

So here is another draft, which basically excludes the KFC reference. As always all comments are gratefully received.

Defendant
Address

County Court Business Centre
4th Floor St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH

17th October 2018

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Total Parking Solutions Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx xxxxxxxx (Defendant)

---

DEFENCE

---

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Notice to Hirer was not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraph 13/14, so the named hirer firm cannot be held liable.

3. It is denied that the Defendant is 'driver and/or registered keeper, the Defendant is neither.

4. Should the Claimant attempt to rely on an improper citation of the irrelevant case of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd, or an assumption using the law of agency, the fact is that the occupants of the cars caught that evening were enjoying a social get together ('pork pie making') in their own time with family members. The driver was not on business, nor acting 'on behalf of' the business in any way, so there is no rule of law that can be twisted to hold the Defendant liable.

5. It is denied that the signage can be seen at all, let alone read in the dark. Video footage and photographic evidence has been gathered to support this. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. Three other work colleagues parked in the same car park that evening oblivious to any signage claiming timing restrictions. All of whom have received a PCN, so the Claimant is clearly in difficulty with their alleged contract which was impossible to see in the dark.

7. The car park has been used by various parties known to the defendant for years, never noticing any signage suggesting there are time restrictions, so this must be a new regime not properly signed in accordance with the BPA CoP.

8. BWLegal, the Claimant’s legal representation, letter dated 11th September 2018 states: "Their client's cause of action is that Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the contract which the Defendant entered into by parking the vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket (PDT)." - The car park in question is not and has never been a Pay & Display car park.

9. The car park was 70% empty when the driver arrived and departed so there was no legitimate interest in operating intrusive ANPR surveillance 24/7.

10. There are two Pay & Display car parks in close proximity to this car park that are free to use after 18:00 every day. If restrictions on this car park were known and/or clearly presented, the Driver would not have chosen to park there.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Name

Signed: Date:

System

Interesting rebuttal to the CPS case but it covers the main issue. These claims are all about communication. Whether the terms of the space including penalties were communicated sufficiently.

Pointing out flaws in their claim is a good way of drawing attention to their lack of attention and by inference the sloppy way they run a car park. The multiple tickets to multiple cars is just another way of saying, the Claimant were negligent in their duty to communicate any restriction.

Can't see anything else to add. The not driver / not keeper should kill it but if you want to put them on notice of costs, then do so.

Edna_Basher

I think it would be worthwhile quoting the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Clever Car Finance Ltd, D6DP7R03, 12/12/17 in Skipton County Court.

This concerned a company car which was parked at a retail park and where the driver was not on company business. The full story of how MSE regular "Lamilad" helped a company defendant to successfully counter Excel's reliance on AJH Films is reported on Prankster's blog here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/12/excel-lose-parking-case-against-company.html

trotbot

Hi EB,
Sorry about the late response, life has been a little crazy.
Thank you for your advice.

trotbot

Update:

So the defence was received on 29/10/2018 (The last entry in the claim history on MCOL).

BWLegal then sent a letter including a directions questionnaire dated 5th Nov 18, claiming that their client intends to continue with the claim and that they have notified the court of the same. (Clearly both the letter and questionnaire are templates populated from a database)

A couple of weeks passed by with no further correspondence, so I called the court. They told me the directions questionnaire would be sent out 33 days after receiving notification from the claimant.

As 33 days passed almost 2 weeks ago I called the court again today. They confirmed that they have NOT received any notification from the claimant and that the time required to do so had elapsed.

Apparently they will have to jump through more hoops to continue the claim. Sorry about the layman's terms, but I zoned out with anger once I was told BWlegal had not contacted the court.

Was this purely a last stab at scaring us into submission with no intention of notifying the court!?!?!?

Quick Question:
If BWLegal had notified the court of their intention to continue with the claim, would there be another entry in the claim history on MCOL?

Cheers all again

trotbot

Update:
Ok so it seems we have been dragged back on the ride  

We received a letter from BWLegal a few weeks ago stating - they understood that these are uncertain times and that they would happily allow us to pay off the outstanding amount in instalments.... blah blah blah. 

As we had already defended the claim I gave it no further thought other than feeling pretty disgusted at the opportunistic mentality of these people. Have they no shame???

Nothing further happened until Saturday (12/09) when we received a General Directions Order from good old County Court Business Centre stating:

"The court will deal with the application to lift the stay without hearing under CPR 23.8(c)
It is ordered that:
The Application to lift the stay and for direction questionnaires to be issued is granted." 
Followed by a note to explain CPR 23.8(c).

The letter then moves on to Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track:

"Take Notice That
1. This is now a defended claim.
    The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed (The second clause is scribbled out)
2. It appears that this suitable for allocation to the small claims track.

    If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box C1 on the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and explain why.

3. You must by 28 September 2020 complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office [County Court, 4th Floor Kathrine…..] and serve the copies on all other parties.”

 

A photocopy of the N180 and an incredibly poor photocopy of an EX730 were enclosed.

 

I have checked MCOL and there is a new entry: 

• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 08/10/2018
• Your defence was received on 29/10/2018
• DQ sent to you on 10/09/2020 

 

Sooooo.. I have some reading to do and will follow up once I have completed my homework.

 Any comments in the meantime will be gratefully received. 

Cheers.

KeithP

Nothing further happened until Saturday (12/09) when we received a General Directions Order from good old County Court Business Centre stating:
"The court will deal with the application to lift the stay without hearing under CPR 23.8(c)
It is ordered that:
The Application to lift the stay and for direction questionnaires to be issued is granted." 
Followed by a note to explain CPR 23.8(c).

Is there nothing on that Order giving you an opportunity to object to the application to lift the stay?

Read the last couple of posts on this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6190061/p2